Playing God's advocate...

[Gestahl]

Actually, I'd say that Tacitus confirms that Christians believed in Christ and that the stories of the 4 gospels were fairly well known stories by then.

As for the historical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels did what he did (preached to masses, loaves and fishes, walked on water, healed sick, etc.), we hear only crickets noises. The lack of comment from the arena of literate contemporary scholars is DEAFENING.

Since the difference means Christianity or no Christianity... those cricket noises are pretty loud.

(And sorry but the Ossuary box doesn't help one way or another even if it is real.)

Thanks DB. This is why in historical document research, *contemporary* writings are absolutely critical. Tacitus is far later.

 

[Gestahl]

Gestahl, I find this thread really interesting and appreciate what your'e doing. What is your academic/religious background, and why would you want to play the role of "God's advocate?"

Edited to add: Why do agnostics, atheists, etc. say there is no evidence of Jesus Christ ever existing?

First, thanks for the complements. Just trying to educate, elucidate, and help others figure out what the hell is going on here ;-).

My background religiously:

Raised Southern Baptist, with somewhat liberal parents, but highly conservative congregation. My parents believed in a compromise: intent inerrancy. While each word may not be totally true, they are all meant to teach something, should not be thrown out, and have a "deeper truth." Throughout the last 5 years I have slowly "deconverted."

My background academically: AP National Scholar, President's Scholarship to Georgia Tech, graduated in 3 years with a BS in CompSci. Informally, I study almost everything under the sun and enjoy learning all of it, especially cellular biology, relativity and quantum mechanics, philosophy, and psychology.

Whew... OK. If you want me to self-psychoanalyze, here goes.

I am doing this for two reasons. One is the first point I have stated. There have been no systematic *intelligent* defenders of Christianity here as of late. One sided arguments are boring, so if we can't bring Christians here, I will just manufacture one, which I think many people here do anyway, I just don't like sock puppets. I should be willing to attach my name (fake though it is)to anything I say.

The other reason is, of late I have become almost hateful of my past, parents, and religion. I need to take stock, look back, and remember why I believed what I believed, remember what I *did* believe, etc. I want to confirm my own religious thoughts by doing everything I can (within context of a rational discussion) to support the opposite position, and still be convinced by the opposing viewpoint. This is difficult to do honestly just by yourself, and most of my friends tire of religious discussion because they are militant agnostics... "I don't know, and you don't either and we can never know so just shut up already!"

As for your final question, they mean there is no evidence that passes muster for such a huge claim. The most we have are a few scraps from later historians, a paragraph that is most likely altered from Josephus, and the Gospels. I would hope you would see why many would throw those out as outright biased samples.

Your whippet looks like it's on green spice...

Your whippet looks like it's on green spice...

 

[geni]

Tacitus only mentions "Christus" in passing. He was actually commenting on the excesses of Nero.

I'm not saying he read the Christian gospels, simply that the stories were well enough known for a scholar to make a brief note of them.

But he doesn't state it as a christian belife. He states it as a fact.

 

[Gestahl]

Just one question, even though it's worded as three:

Which were this God's reasons to create the Universe, the Earth and, specifically, all the conscious beings in it (whether to include non-human animals here, is an open question)?

Boredom? Wanting something else to be? While no scripture supports this outright, God had already created angels, with no free will. They do only his will. Perhaps God wanted something else with the capability of free will. This one I will chalk up to "gotta ask that one when I meet Him."

How can God justify the willing creation of so many millions of beings who will, eventually, suffer eternal pain?

Why do people willingly create children when they know there is a good chance that there child maybe raped, murdered, abused, tortured, heart broken, etc.? Because you want to give them the chance to live and enjoy the good things in life. I do not believe in eternal pain in hell being tortured by fire a brimstone... that is simple imagery.

"eternal pain" and not "silent oblivion"?

You got me. I choose to interperate scripture very liberally, and while there is an afterlife, and it is eternal, Hell is the separation from God. God is the embodiment of love and all that is good. Hell is the separation from that, and the pain of knowing that all that was ever worth existing for is gone forever.

 

[Gestahl]

But he doesn't state it as a christian belife. He states it as a fact.

That is inconsequential. The source cannot be used as authoritative, because it is not contemporary. He is stating this 10th-hand. Josephus, if any of his passage is real, is probably third- or fourth-hand. Even with his problems, Josephus is the better looking source.

 

[H3LL]

When we die it is said that all the gooey bits are left behind and it's our soul that 'moves on'.

Both sides agree that the soul is undetectable by any means currently available and has no tangible form.

Bad people go to hell to be punished with pointy sticks, fire and endless reality TV.

How is the soul punished with fire etc. when it has no physical form?

There should be no fear of hell as you can't burn/hurt/destroy a soul.

 

[geni]

That is inconsequential. The source cannot be used as authoritative, because it is not contemporary. He is stating this 10th-hand. Josephus, if any of his passage is real, is probably third- or fourth-hand. Even with his problems, Josephus is the better looking source.

Almost all our histroy from that period (asside from a few really big things) can thrn be writen off. considering his rank there is an obvius source he could have used that would have only made his account third hand.

 

[daven]

Ossuary

Hi all, first post...

WRT to the ossuary "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus", the inscription is a fake.

Full story at http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

I have a question for Gestahl too. Am I correct in assuming that only a limited amount of true believers will make it through the Rapture? Doesn't this contradict the idea that all can be saved through faith? What happens to those who have truly accepted Jesus as their saviour, but are "left behind"?

 

[Humphreys]

I do not. It is complete allegory, and fits in with the cosmology of the day. It consisted ascendingly of water, earth, air, water again (hence rain), then the heavens. This is a way God could reveal his creation story in the vaguest, most comprehensible way to the people of the time.

As I said, I do not plan to defend the Bible with literal interpretation.

Sorry I missed where you said you didn't want to defend the Bible literally.

However, it's not that Genesis is supposed to be symbolic in any way, it's obviously just plain wrong. It's complete nonsense.

The people therefore didn't have a very close connection to God if they can make such a hash of things - and why would God allow his people to put out such a misleading book?

More importantly, if you don't see the Bible as infallible, why do you trust anything else that is in there?

You also admit that the evidence for Jesus existence is lacking, and you know how easy it is for false stories to be attached to people, so what reason - if any - do you have for believing in God, or being a Christian at all?

Simply put, what's your reason for being a Christian (I know you're not one really, of course)?

 

[Jellby]

Boredom? Wanting something else to be?

He could just have created an illusion for him, some kind of virtual reality, without the need of millions of little "souls" feeling whatever they feel... Oh, well.

Why do people willingly create children when they know there is a good chance that there child maybe raped, murdered, abused, tortured, heart broken, etc.?

Exactly, there are so many thing that could go wrong... There is no joy in life to compensate the smallest pain, the only true happiness is non-existence, as soon as you feel hunger and cry, life's not worth it anymore. One of the reasons I don't plan having any children and I don't feel happy when other people do... I have nothing against adoption, though, I might consider that. Yes, a bit too pesimistic, I guess, but who cares?

You got me. I choose to interperate scripture very liberally, and while there is an afterlife, and it is eternal, Hell is the separation from God. God is the embodiment of love and all that is good. Hell is the separation from that, and the pain of knowing that all that was ever worth existing for is gone forever.

Why not non-existence again? No mind, no soul to "know" it is gone, no nothing. Why not reward without punishment (even that "indirect" one)? If I was confronted with either Heaven or this non-existence, I guess I would choose the latter, I don't trust God.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Almost all our histroy from that period (asside from a few really big things) can thrn be writen off. considering his rank there is an obvius source he could have used that would have only made his account third hand.

But Josephus actually says something of substance.

Tacitus just says "Hey there's this Christ guy who was killed by the Romans in Judea."

Well, that vaguely confirms 1/100th of the gospels. If Tactitus used the gospels as his source (and we don't know), then the evidence is entirely circular. So that's AT BEST.

I personally feel - from a lack of contemporary validation - that virtually all of the gospels were made up. Jesus more than likely a real person... a real rebel... maybe even preached close to the same things as were said in the Bible.... was killed by the Romans and a whole generation of word of mouth tellings later were written down as the Gospels.

So we go from this rebel Jew (who probably really believed he was the son of God ala David Korresh) to the Jesus of the Gospels in about 30-50 years time.

He probably actually had a small handful of followers and that blossomed like modern fish stories to a multitude.

His miracles were simply exaggarations as stories were passed from person to person.

This view is consistent with the historical evidence, which is at best sketchy.

 

[Gestahl]

When we die it is said that all the gooey bits are left behind and it's our soul that 'moves on'.

Both sides agree that the soul is undetectable by any means currently available and has no tangible form.

Bad people go to hell to be punished with pointy sticks, fire and endless reality TV.

How is the soul punished with fire etc. when it has no physical form?

This is a mistake of taking the colorful imagery of torture in Hell and considering it literal. Hell is the separation from God, and that is the torture. There is no fire, brimstone, or little imps with pitchforks to torment you.

 

[Gestahl]

Humphreys -

This thread's title is a play on the phrase "devil's advocate." I will leave it up to you to figure out my religious leanings. Throughout this thread, I am speaking in character as a Christian.

The people therefore didn't have a very close connection to God if they can make such a hash of things - and why would God allow his people to put out such a misleading book?

The Isrealites actually did not have a very good relationship with God. Most of the OT is them straying from him, falling into captivity, having a prophet to renew their faith, and then God leading them to freedom once more. As for the second question, God does not direct human minds and pens directly. That would be interfering with free will.

More importantly, if you don't see the Bible as infallible, why do you trust anything else that is in there?

Why trust anything that Plato wrote when many philosphers have had much more profound and worked out philosophies?

The answer, of course, is faith. Plain and simple. For example, I have faith that people are generally good inside. The faith of God and Jesus is the faith that goodness, virtue, and love are what will save humanity, and yourself.

 

[Gestahl]

Re: Ossuary

I have a question for Gestahl too. Am I correct in assuming that only a limited amount of true believers will make it through the Rapture? Doesn't this contradict the idea that all can be saved through faith? What happens to those who have truly accepted Jesus as their saviour, but are "left behind"?

First, welcome the boards. Hope your stay is interesting and hopefully somewhat educational.

Now, to the question:

Oh dear. Not the tribulation stuff. That is some of the most hotly contested doctrinal issues.

Please cite the scripture where you are getting the idea that only a limited amount of saved people will get taken up in the Rapture. I do remember a passage about 144,000, but it deals with the last true remnants of the Jewish peoples that will be taken to Heaven, I believe.

 

[Gestahl]

He could just have created an illusion for him, some kind of virtual reality, without the need of millions of little "souls" feeling whatever they feel... Oh, well.

What makes you think we aren't (virtual-type things), to get a little metaphysical here ;-)?

Exactly, there are so many thing that could go wrong... There is no joy in life to compensate the smallest pain, the only true happiness is non-existence, as soon as you feel hunger and cry, life's not worth it anymore. One of the reasons I don't plan having any children and I don't feel happy when other people do... I have nothing against adoption, though, I might consider that. Yes, a bit too pesimistic, I guess, but who cares?

What a sad, dreary, and unhopeful view. One that in reality I happen to share. Here's to it <drinks>.

In character, here is my response: You need the love of Jesus, as it is the only true love. The love of God, of your creator, is what makes life worth living!

Why not non-existence again? No mind, no soul to "know" it is gone, no nothing. Why not reward without punishment (even that "indirect" one)? If I was confronted with either Heaven or this non-existence, I guess I would choose the latter, I don't trust God. [/B][/QUOTE]

Law of Conservation of Souls? The Christian response is that the soul is immortal, it cannot be destroyed. If you reject God and his love, he sends you to Hell, which, as I have noted earlier, is simply the absence of God. God is not omnipresent like the label says (nor does any verse in the Bible specifically state that God is everywhere).

 

[Gestahl]

Exactly, there are so many thing that could go wrong... There is no joy in life to compensate the smallest pain, the only true happiness is non-existence, as soon as you feel hunger and cry, life's not worth it anymore.

Question for you then. If that is the case, why have you not "shuffled off this mortal coil"? If non-existence is the only true (non-?)happiness, and life is nothing but pain, and there is not a God to damn you upon commiting suicide, what's to stop you from doing it?

 

[Humphreys]

HThis thread's title is a play on the phrase "devil's advocate." I will leave it up to you to figure out my religious leanings. Throughout this thread, I am speaking in character as a Christian.

Yeah I did realize you were only pretending to be Christian - I mentioned this at the end of my last post.

Thanks for the response, anyway.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why would God need an advocate?

 

[Gestahl]

Why would God need an advocate?

Because you are obviously not listening to Him ;-).

 

[Jellby]

Question for you then. If that is the case, why have you not "shuffled off this mortal coil"? If non-existence is the only true (non-?)happiness, and life is nothing but pain, and there is not a God to damn you upon commiting suicide, what's to stop you from doing it?

In no particular order: It's not so easy to do it in without pain. This damned genetically programmed primitive brain tries to rebel everytime. And, at this moment, I'm not alone, my parting would affect other people, and I don't want to hurt them if I can avoid it.

But certainly, I'm not so much worried about my own death. I fear pain much more than death. A couple of years ago, one of my cousins committed suicide (second try, as far as I know), while I didn't have much relationship with her, I can only be glad for her.